Control: tags -1 pending On 06-08-14 13:57, Yavor Doganov wrote: >> Then I really suggest to create the images (and the wav?) from that >> file during building. I share the opinion of many (most?) DD's that >> the only way to make sure that we can build from sources with tools >> available in Debian is to actually do that. > > That's news to me. Is it? I thought I saw you doing the same thing with the some xpm files in multiple GNUstep packages. > Only one package in the archive build-depends on > blender (gfpoken) and that is because the upstream build system > invokes blender. Only three packages build-depend on gimp (gfpoken, > openntd-opengfx, xbmc) -- for the first two gimp is invoked by the > upstream build system, and xbmc uses it to regenerate a logo with > Debian modifications (which looks reasonable). Well, I do it in multiple of my packages, e.g. in Winff to create the pdfs from Libre Office files. > Using blender to regenerate the png files has no practical benefit, it > will only make the package not buildable on architectures where > blender is not installable or not yet built. True. An alternative would be to create a target in the rules file that can be used once in a while to check it is possible. Anyways, this is not a hard requirement by me (it might be for others). > If there is a consensus among DDs that all arch-indep files should be > regenerated during build I suggest to make it legitimate by > documenting it in the Debian Policy. That is a good idea. When I have better internet access, I will check for past discussion and hopefully follow-up on it. > A far more serious concern is whether the .gorm files will be loadable > with future gnustep-gui releases or editable with future gorm.app > versions. Can you help me a bit, how does this work? Are the .gorm files in the packages created by the maintainer? Are they the source files, or created during building? (I must admit I don't have a clue how this all works.) >> In that case, please verify that the blender file is really the >> source of the images and document that fact in either d/copyright or >> in a comment in d/rules > > Why should I document this? I really don't understand this > requirement and where it comes from. Well, it comes from me as I had to ask you during the reviewing how this all works. If it is documented, you don't need to do the same next time (with a next sponsor or otherwise interested person). >> The location of icon in the desktop file point to /usr/lib/ > > AFAICT this is not a bug. Sure not. But I think it makes sense to use the canonical location. On the other hand, you also gave an argument of using the /usr/lib location. Building now, uploading soon. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature